Redpill me on left communism. What makes it better than other forms of communism or anarchism?

Redpill me on left communism. What makes it better than other forms of communism or anarchism?

Other urls found in this thread:

libcom.org/history/1919-1922-workers-opposition
marxists.org/archive/kollonta/1921/workers-opposition/intro.htm
marxists.catbull.com/archive/pannekoe/1947/workers-councils.htm#h3
bopsecrets.org/SI/12.era1.htm
marxists.org/subject/left-wing/index.htm
pastebin.com/N0RfQdnM
libcom.org/library/rojava-reality-rhetoric-gilles-dauvé-tl
twitter.com/NSFWRedditVideo

Read about it yourself. So you can actually engage and not get summaries. If you don't want to engage with the material, you shouldn't be here.

Basically I sit back and label everything "not socialism" and I'm right 100% of the time so I contribute nothing of value ever besides cynicism.

Where can I get some good reading material?

What other forms?

Workers gotta control the MoP, anything else is separation and alienation.

Unions are bourgeois through and through, trying to make them proletarian is like trying to take over the Democratic Party and have Bernie's "political revolution".

libcom.org/history/1919-1922-workers-opposition

marxists.org/archive/kollonta/1921/workers-opposition/intro.htm

marxists.catbull.com/archive/pannekoe/1947/workers-councils.htm#h3

bopsecrets.org/SI/12.era1.htm

I'm pretty sure Kollontai and the SI are not traditional "left-com" but they are for workers' councils. There are some other left-com works that are hysterically anti-Bolshevik and are kind of cringey. Lenin was perfectly accurate in his "Left-Wing Communism, an Infantile Disorder" but in it he was writing against the faction that wanted to basically continue WW1, RSFSR vs Germany. Left-communism as most understand it is very 'workerist'

marxists.org/subject/left-wing/index.htm

They're Marxists, so they actually have theory and aren't a bunch of idealist liberals. Also they want to build a state and call it one, too.

zoz

?
Like all Marxists left communists advocate a transitional proletarian state before communism can be achieved.

And how would they build that state? If they are anti-Leninists, that means they reject a Vanguard Party, right? What do they use, then?

Pls no

The Dutch/German variation supports a system of federated workers' councils.

The Italian strain aka Bordigism is very much pro-party and has been called "more Leninist than Lenin".

You'll have to ask one of the resident leftcoms for more details.

it's not a particular "brand" of communism. We think that communism (the movement) will be shaped by the working class and is thus independent of sectarian sophism.We merely try to provide answers concerning strategy and historical questions such as the role of the party and the nature of the soviet union.

:(

pastebin.com/N0RfQdnM

How would the fact they're considered a lesser evil to fucking ISIS make them more or less revolutionary?

yeah it really depends on which leftcoms you ask. Pannekoek and Mattick were strictly anti-party and advocated a federation of soviets/councils (dutch/german leftcom = councilism). Italian leftcoms propose the "classic" bolshevik way of seizing state power and beginning the process of communisation and spreading the revolution.
And then there is the Communisation tendency which is essentially french leftcom, synthesizing the italian and dutch/german current. You should check out Gilles Dauvé for more about Communisation.

This guy's comics are fucking dumb, if somehow we could get money from the US government for the revolution we shouldn't take it?

this implies there's a revolution (ie the working class assuming power) happening in Rojava.

So what would be the difference between Italian leftcoms and Leninists?


There is.
Did you miss the collectivization of the means of production or were you too triggered by the fact that it's not 100% percent complete yet?

tbh I don't think that Leninism is even a thing. It's something his successors have retrospectively constructed to justify their own positions. What's the difference between Lenin and the italian leftcoms is a better question.
The main differences at that time were Bordiga's abstentionism, his position on national liberation and the debate concerning democratic vs organic centralism.
Still, Bordiga and the PCI saw themselves in line with Lenin and the Bolsheviks.

...

if collectivization means revolution than I guess countries with nationalized economies are pretty much communist.

...

Lol, now I see why nobody likes leftcoms

I don't follow this line of thought. Even for a Lelninist they are different things.

When did replacing the board of shareholders with a bureaucrat constitute collectivization?

yeah most people don't like the truth about muh wymenz with muh gunz and their ebin coops.

you're right, I forgot about muh coops. Still, I don't think that changing the form of property actually changes its quality (which is excluding others from using it). Instead of abolishing it, they are merely reorganizing it.

Another point however is that socialism is not about petty local production. Being the positive negation of capitalism it will retain its globalist characteristics. It follows that production will be organized internationally and the whole society will have to be able to control the whole production process. An economy based on a myriad of coops however is not compatible with this notion because the logic of exchange (and thus the law of value) will still apply when coops are distributing their goods which are essentially still commodities.

The system is not mutualism.
The coops are subject to the will of the direct democratic local assemblies. We're not talking proudhonianism here, we're talking about a system where both individualist initiative and communal responsibility is encouraged.
If a coop should begin to accumulate too much capital, the local assembly can simply choose to divide the proceeds amongst themselves; this, in pragmatic terms, adds variable capital to the work-process and thus negates the tendency of the rate of profits to fall.

Capitalism is not necessarily globalist initially, and so therefore socialism wil not have to be globalist initally either, even if we're clinging to dialectical dogmatism.

So if I can't jizz in your grandmother's ashes that's capitalism?

How do you avoid immediately identifying the movement of the working-class with the movement of the revolutionary process?

That's what strikes me as difficult with communization and certain strains of left-communism–the failure to recognize that though the proletariat is the only class capable of carrying out the revolutionary process, its movements are in no way actually at once the construction of communism.

Between the imputed movements of the proletariat as the subject of revolution and the actual existing movements of the proletarian as a fractured class within capital stands a chasm in need of mediation. And I can't really see anyway out of it but through a complexly articulated party that mediates between the existing movement and those potential paths that lead to communism.

The anti-party tendencies of modern leftcom/communisation seem to rely on intensification of the crisis tendencies of capital so as to spontaneously initiate communist measures among the proletariat.

So they are literally hardcore economic determinists?

They don't believe crisis will magically bring communism.

Wait, so what's the difference in between a leftcom and a libsoc? From what I can tell from the flagfag here, it seems like leftcoms fucking hate reformism and don't see the abolition of government as an important endgoal. Am I wrong?

Also if you say market socialism isn't socialism I fucking hate you, shut your whore mouth.

"Libertarian socialism" is deliberately vague. You can be a libsoc and a leftcom.

Yes.

libcom.org/library/rojava-reality-rhetoric-gilles-dauvé-tl
there's a reason most groups have retracted support for them as we learned more about it

libcom.org/library/rojava-reality-rhetoric-gilles-dauvé-tl

why is US support and aid inherently a bad thing? The fucking Hungarian revolutionaries asked for US support, but didn't get it because they were communists

They are like anarchikiddies who are not whine about Bolsheviks like Chomsky. Their actual politics is pure anarcho lifestylism tho, peppered with early 20th century verbiage.